| Subject: Re: pjk to krz |
Author:
pjk
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/28/04 11:50:02pm
In reply to:
pa
's message, "geo is here! Yay!!" on 10/19/04 4:21:15pm
Hi krz,
Sorry for the absence. Been busy and not especially inclined after tjm’s little temper tantrum. The article by Confessore about TCS is actually quite interesting and deserves a read from the voy despite the screaming.
krz: without some understanding that some information from some people needs to be trusted, then how can we move forward in a civil discourse?
pjk: indeed, civil discourse requires a measure of trust –in the reliability of the info/facts, the choice and framing of the info/facts, and intent behind presenting the info/facts. It is impossible for us to personally verify most stuff when it comes to the outside world – polls, budgets, balance sheets, stock values, who said what exactly – we have to rely on others, we have to trust them to the degree we feel comfortable. I simply am not comfortable with many of tjm’s sources. I’m open to some, but so far, not many.
krz: you've challenged me on my use of the 911 commission report as basis for some decision making.
pjk: it’s not clear to me how you used the 9/11 report as a basis for a decision. Your quotes from the report we’re used as a response to me asking rhetorically why arab & muslim opinion of America was at an all time low. The 9/11 report didn’t address the plummeting favorability as the drop is due to the war in Iraq. As for the report, I didn’t dismiss it outright: in the specific context of your post I didn’t find it convincing. I suppose I could’ve kept my mouth shut, but I feel more genuine responding, than not.
Krz: you've challenged tjm/tzz on his use of those you consider right wing propagandists as a basis for some of his decision making.
Pjk: It is not that I, pjk, consider Rush, TCS, NRO, Frontpage, Faux News, the Hoover Institute, etc. etc. rightwing. They are rightwing independent of me. If they are not rightwing then there is no such thing as a rightwing. If I consistently posted Fidel Castro, Naom Chomsky, or Angela Davis you could say I’m left wing, but I don’t. You could say my sources are as tilted, but they aren’t.
It is my perogative to challenge or to agree. Tjm is free to post what articles or quotes he likes and agrees with and I am free to express my opinions about the posts in the manner I choose. In turn, I am challenged by both pa and tjm and yourself. I’m not offended nor do you see me screaming or writing in caps. If I am no more persuaded by some the voy’s arguments with me than the voy is with some of mine, so be it. Like you said, we get to know ourselves better.
Krz: yet although you've offered contrasting opinion, your sources are as biased as the ones you critique me of using
Pjk: I find it hard to quantify bias as in “as biased as” his or hers or mine in a general sense as you have suggested. I think it’s a case by case basis. In some philosophical sense, I suppose some of my sources are as biased, some worse, some better. (anything specific you had in mind?)
Krz: i don't trust the government implicitly, however, as i teach my students how to examine quality of evidence - sometimes it's the best we have to work with.
Pjk – sound right to me
Krz: this disagreement among friends is suggestive of a larger problem with our national discourse. if the argument is always based on 'distrustful data' then how do we ever move forward? the discourse inevitably ends up being the intellectual equivalent of 'so are you but what am i'.
Pjk: I would modify “national discourse” to “discourse throughout human history.” Discourse has always been a problem for humans, though not insurmountable. As to “always” basing an argument on data… I don’t see anyway around that unless we’re engaging in hypotheticals. When tjm posts articles from rightwing sources, I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical like I’m skeptical of infomercials that promise to make me a millionaire through the “secrets” of the real estate industry.
As for “I know you are but what am I” – you nailed it on the head. This, to me, is one of the big problems regarding the media in general, which, in large measure, frames national discussion. It also symbolizes and summarizes many of the arguments coming from the rightwing and the Republican party to me. If you can remember offhand where I’ve ever suggested or implied this type of argument, please tell me. To say that both Bush and Kerry have lied, is to tell a truth that has no relevance. To say that Bush lied about Iraq and Kerry lied about the date he went into Cambodia – well, at least to me, they don’t compare. They don’t indicate that both men are to be distrusted to the same degree. From where I stand, the right and the GOP are masters at getting people to believe that they are just engaging in the same tactics to the same degree as the democrats or the just-left-of-centers and fair is fair. They seek to kick up as much dust as they can so that people can’t get a clear shot and see that their abuse is measured in geometric terms rather than arithmatic. Bush talking about his tax cuts is a prime example. Cheney talking about al qaida and saddam is another.
krz: how can any nation move forward when we can't agree to have civil discussions on differing points of interest?
Pjk: It can’t. Now if we could just get rid of the blowhards of uncivil discussion who have millions of listeners on both sides, left and right, like Rush & Hannity and….. hmmm, can’t seem to think of lefties that compare. Can you?
Krz:it's no secret i'm left of tzz. yet, because i respect him, his opinion, and his work - i work to understand why he reads an issue (the war, social policy, economics) from a different lens. this approach buys me both the opportunity to reflect on why i hold the beliefs i hold, and to enrich my perspective so that i can clearly view the weaknesses in my arguments. what a gift. i egotistically assume tzz does the same.
Pjk: as I am and do… as for respecting tjm, yes, and admiration, and love, and the inexpressible mystery of who he is. But as everyone knows, I take issue with his with his affinity with groups and people I often loathe, who I distrust completely. To me it is not as casual as say, I like blue and you like red.
krz: your approach seems to be to dismiss those who disagree with your already formed opinion - and in doing so to dismiss the individual. this is neither civil nor reflective - and in the end you lose the richness of debate.
Pjk: Fair enough. I don’t mean to dismiss tjm or anyone else on the voy. As for formed opinions, yes, I’m guilty. Dismissing those who disagree with me… it depends on the subject and argument or counter argument. Sometimes I can’t help myself. I’ll take to heart my part in the tangos.
Krz:i challenge you pjk - to define what you consider the criterion of good evidence - so that we can at least hold discussions that originate from commonly held assumptions.
Pjk: I don’t have any such definition. For me, it is an organic complex that has been developed and is still developing over and with time. It is based on my world view, my value system, my experiences, my paying attention to world events the past 20 years, my perception of human nature as it plays itself out on the grand political stage of America and the world, my understanding of history, my hopes and dreams for humanity, the acculturation of my Wisco-American mind and the de-culturation of my studies and travels. The chemical composition consists of such things as my catholic upbringing from which grew a sympathy more in tune with liberation theology than with Opus Dei, my middleclass roots - not quite blue collar, but not quite white collar either, that would rather take the side of the disenfranchised than cheerlead for the super wealthy, my affinity with hippies, & artists over rednecks and mercenaries, a love and respect for Nature for Nature’s sake, and not just in terms of how it can further our material progress, a deep distrust of government through Watergate, Vietnam, and Reagan, my travels, adventures & experiences overseas, my relationships with my Love and son, my awesome family & wonderful friends, and a great naïve hope that humans can someday realize peace on earth & goodwill towards all, where every morning is Christmas morning, where the weak are not crushed by the mighty and the Earth is not destroyed by greed. I don’t have or engage in dreams of empire. There is nothing I admire about War.
Perhaps more to the point, I seek to triangulate information, or quadradulate… how does the info or analysis hold up to what I already know? How does it compare to criticisms from like minded people? How does it fit into the mainstream? How is either side of the spectrum reacting to the info and what are their views? How does it, the reporter or writer, their magazine or affiliation hold up over time? Are they consistently good, mixed or poor? Where is the person coming from on the political spectrum? What do they consider favorable and what do they consider unfavorable? Do I have an affinity with them or are they threatening to me, my values, and way of life? What reason do I have to trust or distrust them? Are these the facts or are there some that have been purposefully left out? This is a sample of my sniff test.
As for commonly held assumptions… I’m sure there are many. But, fundamentally, I believe that the reason tjm and pjk can’t see I to I is because we hold very different assumptions on subjects that matter a great deal to us.
Gotta go to bed.
I’ll try to get to the Kerry post this weekend.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 